CELL AND SECONDARY BATTERY
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 12 recite the limitation "the thickness". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the limitation "the material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claims 4 and 14 recite the limitation "the dotted areal density". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claims 5 and 15 recite the limitation "the compacted density". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the limitation "the width" and “the thickness”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in these claims.
Claims 7 and 17 recite the limitation "the compacted density". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claims 8 and 18 recite the limitation "the width" and “the thickness”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in these claims.
Claims 9 and 19 recite the limitation "the corner radius”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in these claims.
Claims 10 and 20 recite the limitation "the thicknesses”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in these claims.
Claims 9 and 19 disclose wherein the corner radius of a first layer of the cell is r, the corner radius of an (N+1)th layer is kN+r, the length L of the positive electrode buffer coating/the negative electrode buffer coating of the (N+1)th layer is π(kN+r).
However, they specification does not provide numerical values or range for length and radius. How can one of ordinary skill in the art optimize construction of the cell within ranges that are appropriate?
Further, claims 9 and 19, disclose where k is a length coefficient, and a value range of the length coefficient is 0.31-0.36.
However, the specification does not disclose how these values are obtained. The specification only states: “According to the winding compact degree of the cell, the length coefficient k takes different values, and then the length L is roughly calculated according to an N-layer buffer coating.” This is not an adequate description for obtaining these values.
Claims 10 and 20 disclose wherein the thicknesses of the positive electrode buffer coating and the negative electrode buffer coating in different layers of the cell are different.
However, there is no disclosure for how much they differ from each other. All embodiments shown in the specification disclose they both have the same thickness with the exception of comparative embodiment 1 which shows a positive electrode buffer coating while omitting its negative counterpart.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (US 2012/0171536 A1) and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 202585643 U).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kaneda et al. a cell (Paragraph 0034; Fig. 1A discloses an electrode assembly, element 4, for a secondary battery.), comprising: a first separator (Fig. 1C, element 31), a positive electrode plate (Fig. 1C, element 14), a second separator (Paragraph 0037; Fig. 1C, element 31 discloses an additional separator.) and a negative electrode plate (Fig. 1C, element 24), wherein the first separator, the positive electrode plate, the second separator and the negative electrode plate are stacked in sequence to form a composite electrode plate (Paragraph 0037 discloses elements 31, 14, 41, and 24 are stacked to form an electrode plate.), and the composite electrode plate is wound to obtain the cell (Paragraph 0037 discloses the they are wound.); the cell comprises a straight portion (Fig. 1A, element 41) and corner portions arranged at two ends of the straight portion (Fig. 1A, element 42). While Kaneda et al. teach a buffer layer on the positive negative electrode plates (Paragraph 0064; Figs. 1B, c, 5, and 7, element 10 discloses spacers formed continuously or at intervals.), they do not disclose at least one surface of the positive electrode plate located at the corner portion is provided with a positive electrode buffer coating and/or at least one surface of the negative electrode plate located at the corner portion is provided with a negative electrode buffer coating.
Zhao et al. teach a lithium-ion battery cell having a winding structure (Abstract) comprising positive electrode (Fig. 4, element 41) and a negative electrode (Fig. 4, element 42). Further, the positive electrode (Fig. 4, element 41) has a corner portion provided with a carbonate layer (Fig. 4, element 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneda with Zhao being that the ethylene carbonate dissolves in the electrolyte, effectively "storing" a certain gap between the negative electrode and its outer positive electrode. During charging, the negative electrode expands in thickness, and the gap "storing" between it and the outer positive electrode effectively releases the thickness expansion of the negative electrode at the corner, preventing the negative electrode from compressing inward and compressing the inner basic unit into an S-shape. This eliminates the deformation of the soft-pack lithium-ion battery after cyclic charging and discharging.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination of Kaneda and Zhao et al. teach the cell and secondary battery of claims 1 and 11. Further, Kaneda et al. teach wherein the thickness of the positive electrode buffer coating is 5-40 µm, and the thickness of the negative electrode buffer coating is 5-40 µm (Paragraph 0116 discloses the thickness of the spacer can be 1-30 µm.).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Kaneda and Zhao et al. teach the cell and secondary battery of claims 1 and 11. Further, Kaneda et al. teach wherein the material of the positive electrode buffer coating is ethylene carbonate, and the material of the negative electrode buffer coating is ethylene carbonate (Paragraph 0099 discloses the spacer contains a resin dissolvable in the electrolyte of the battery and can comprise ethylene carbonate.).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Kaneda and Zhao et al. teach the cell and secondary battery of claims 1 and 11. However, they do not disclose wherein the positive electrode buffer coating is distributed in a dotted dispersion manner, and the dotted areal density is 0.1-20 mg/cm2; and the negative electrode buffer coating is distributed in a dotted dispersion manner, and the dotted areal density is 0.1-20 mg/cm2.
MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Kaneda and Zhao et al. teach the cell and secondary battery of claims 1 and 11. However, they do not teach wherein the corner radius of a first layer of the cell is r, the corner radius of an (N+1)th layer is kN+r, the length L of the positive electrode buffer coating/the negative electrode buffer coating of the (N+1)th layer is πkN+r), where k is a length coefficient, and a value range of the length coefficient is 0.31-0.36.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
In the present case, Zhou discloses a substantially identical structure as presented in the current claims. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the conditions in the claim would apply to the structure in Zhou, in particular the structure shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Kaneda and Zhao et al. teach the cell and secondary battery of claims 1 and 11. Further, Zhao et al. teach wherein the thicknesses of the positive electrode buffer coating and the negative electrode buffer coating in different layers of the cell are different (Paragraph 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneda with Zhao being that the ethylene carbonate dissolves in the electrolyte, effectively "storing" a certain gap between the negative electrode and its outer positive electrode. During charging, the negative electrode expands in thickness, and the gap "storing" between it and the outer positive electrode effectively releases the thickness expansion of the negative electrode at the corner, preventing the negative electrode from compressing inward and compressing the inner basic unit into an S-shape. This eliminates the deformation of the soft-pack lithium-ion battery after cyclic charging and discharging.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (US 2012/0171536 A1) and Zhao et al. (CN 202585643 U) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kanai et al. (US 2022/0302431 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 7, 15, and 17, the combination of Kaneda and Zhao et al. teach the cell and secondary battery of claims 1 and 11. Further, Kaneda et al. teach wherein the positive electrode plate further comprises a positive current collector (Fig. 1C, element 11) and a positive active coating provided on at least one surface of the positive current collector (Fig. 1C, element 12a), the positive electrode buffer coating is provided on a surface of the positive active coating (Fig. 1C, element 10); wherein the negative electrode plate further comprises a negative current collector (Fig. 1C, element 21) and a negative active coating provided on at least one surface of the negative current collector (Fig. 1C, element 22a), the negative electrode buffer coating is provided on a surface of the negative active coating (Fig. 1C, element 10).
However, neither Kaneda nor Zhou teach the compacted density of the positive active coating is 3.0 g/cm3 - 4.0 g/cm3, and the compacted density of the negative active coating is 1.0 g/cm3 - 1.8 g/cm3.
Kanai et al. teach a compacted density of the positive active coating is 3.0 g/cm3 - 4.0 g/cm3, and the compacted density of a negative active coating is 1.0 g/cm3 - 1.8 g/cm3 (Paragraph 0042 discloses in the case of a positive electrode, the active material-containing layer (positive electrode active material-containing layer) may have a density of 2.7 g/cm3 to 3.7 g/cm3. In the case of a negative electrode, the active material-containing layer (negative electrode active material-containing layer) may have a density of 1.8 g/cm3 to 2.9 g/cm3.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneda and Zhou with Kanai in order to reduce the curving amount of the electrode.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 16, and 18, the combination of Kaneda and Zhao et al. teach the cell and secondary battery of claims 1 and 11. However, they do not teach wherein the positive current collector comprises a positive electrode uncoated area and a positive electrode coating area, the positive active coating is provided in the positive electrode coating area, the width of the positive electrode uncoated area is 8-15 mm, and the thickness of the positive current collector is 10-30 µm; wherein the negative current collector comprises a negative electrode uncoated area and a negative electrode coating area, the negative active coating is provided in the negative electrode coating area, the width of the negative electrode uncoated area is 8-15 mm, and the thickness of the negative current collector is 2-15 µm.
Kanai et al. teach wherein the positive current collector (Fig. 4, element 23) comprises a positive electrode uncoated area (Fig. 4, element 23b) and a positive electrode coating area (Fig. 4, element 22), the positive active coating is provided in the positive electrode coating area (Fig. 4), the width of the positive electrode uncoated area is 8-15 mm (Paragraph 0039 discloses a width of the active material non-supporting section is 5-25 mm.), and the thickness of the positive current collector is 10-30 µm (Paragraph 0063 discloses a thickness of the current collector is 5-20 µm.); wherein the negative current collector (Fig. 4, element 33) comprises a negative electrode uncoated area (Fig. 4, element 33b) and a negative electrode coating area (Fig. 4, element 32), the negative active coating is provided in the negative electrode coating area (Fig. 4), the width of the negative electrode uncoated area is 8-15 mm (Paragraph 0039 discloses a width of the active material non-supporting section is 5-25 mm.), and the thickness of the negative current collector is 2-15 µm (Paragraph 0063 discloses a thickness of the current collector is 5-20 µm.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneda and Zhou with Kanai in order to reduce the curving amount of the electrode.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 116487730A and CN 115117557A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 June 10th, 2026
Prosecution Insights